Is the British press hostile toward Israel?
Matt Seaton, the Guardian Web site's opinion editor, discusses coverage of Israel and Dubai passport affair.
By Anshel Pfeffer Tags: Israel newsMatt Seaton is the editor of Comment is Free, the opinion Web site of The Guardian, with 3 million unique users and 10 million page-views a month. The site posts about 30 articles a day, in addition to those that appear in the print edition of The Guardian.
Many of the articles deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The site has been harshly criticized by Israel supporters in Britain for what has been perceived as a preoccupation with Israel, disproportionate criticism and even anti-Semitic overtones to some of the hundreds of talk-backs, or threads, on every article about Israel that appears on the site.
Many in Israel see The Guardian as presenting an anti-Semitic line. Is the British press hostile to Israel and does this hostility influence coverage of the Dubai passport affair?
I think that would be a mistaken view for Israel to adopt: to assume that Britain or the British are hostile to it. But I can only really speak for The Guardian and my colleagues, and we are very aware of our responsibility to be fair and balanced in our reporting; and, in our commentary, to give more than one side of the debate. Over the expulsion of the diplomat, because British passports were used and there was a clear betrayal of trust, it's a little hard to know what comment would not be somewhat critical of Israel in this instance. Reading comments on the threads, we also had some quite vociferous backers of Israel, arguing that there is a degree of hypocrisy - that the British government, when it was fighting the IRA, was often suspected of having a 'shoot to kill' policy, which is a fair point. But Miliband's action was not based on a judgment about of the assassination by the Mossad - if it was the Mossad - but because of the forging of British passports and it's completely fair for there to be criticism of that.
But there is also a feeling that the British government acted this way because of pressure from the media.
It would be very flattering if British media commentators had that much clout, but the passport business was an official matter that at some level the Foreign Office had to take a public stand on.
Your remarks show a deep understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In your position, you should be dealing with the entirety of local British and international issues. Why are you so involved in Israeli affairs?
In my job you have to have a fairly good working knowledge about the debates on the Middle East, because you need good judgment of what is fair and balanced for comment. I have to have a more detailed knowledge of this than some other subject areas, because it's sensitive material.
What makes the Israeli issue so sensitive for you?
It's a very long and intractable conflict, and it's difficult territory because it touches people's identities - both for Israelis and Diaspora Jews, and for Palestinians, Arabs and even Muslims around the world. Any subject that touches identity, nationality, ethnicity and religion is bound to be sensitive - and that's not exclusive to the Middle East by any means.
What other issues have the same sensitivity?
We also have to be very careful on how much and what type of coverage we give to the [far right] British National Party, and the race and immigration debate in Britain. Any comment about areas of Islamic belief and doctrine are also delicate: for instance, any debate on the attempt to legislate on the veil in France will be very sensitive.
An editorial that appeared in The Guardian yesterday said that Israel is acting like "an arrogant nation that has overreached itself." Are you comfortable with such a statement?
I would look hard at the use of the word "nation." I would certainly endorse calling Netanyahu's behavior arrogant; you might reasonably say that his government is behaving arrogantly. Personally, I wouldn't use the term "nation": it flattens out all sense that politics is contested and that there are many views inside Israel.
There is a great deal of criticism in Britain about the way your site deals with Israel. There is even a special site that follows the articles about Israel and the responses, analyzes them for lack of balance and hints of anti-Semitism. Do you think that this is organized activity by the Jewish community?
We feel it is essential to keep open the space for debate that we do, and occasionally, as a consequence, we get harsh criticism from some quarters of the British Jewish community. But do I see that as pressure from a 'pro-Israel lobby?' Definitely not.
But there is a very large number of articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, disproportionately so. Isn't that preoccupation?
We spend a great deal of time thinking how to cover the subject in a balanced and fair way and not in excessive quantity. It's difficult to do that when the Middle East is setting the news agenda.
Perhaps all of British media is obsessed with Israel?
I really don't think so, although it does loom large for very respectable historical reasons - Britain's colonial involvement in Palestine, for instance; and British support for early Zionist aspirations, including notably that of the great Guardian editor C.P. Scott.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is also a fault-line in the geopolitics of the region. That's just a reality. But Israel/Palestine is chiefly an issue for discussion in metropolitan media circles - most ordinary people consuming mainstream media probably have a limited appetite for discussion of the Middle East. The Guardian, of course, has a correspondent in Israel. It's a region of the world that generates so much news; we're part of that, but it's not of our making. I think we're more open to a broad spectrum of views on all subjects, including on Israel/Palestine, than any other media outlet in the UK. We genuinely do provide a platform to all shades of opinions. We probably publish more Israeli voices than we do Palestinian voices, though many of them may be critical of the government.
You have been harshly criticized for posting articles by Hamas members. What are your red lines?
For example, if I was offered a piece that spoke of a Jewish lobby, as opposed to a pro-Israel lobby, that would mean automatic disqualification.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
the only paper i buy in a brilliant paper called the jewish telegraph,printed in manchester i believe. i would not waste my money buy brit papers..as for sure the anti-israel/anti-jewish writters would not know the difference between an arab and a jew if one jumped and bit them on the nose!!! ..or they would think differently if they lived in the mid east..but they live in ivory towers in the uk..
I moved to the UK a year ago, and I'm amazed at the views people have regarding the Middle East 'conflict'. I have yet to meet even one person who supports Israel or Israeli actions. Even when I point out the obvious - that military strikes are usually in response to hundreds, if not thousands, of rocket attacks - the British people I know don't care. They see the Palestinians (Hamas terrorists) as the underdogs, and refuse to see Israel's point of view. I don't blame the British. The media here is so anti-Israel, it's almost funny. But for a nation that prides itself on 'tolerance' and 'understanding', the lack of tolerance and understanding for Israeli actions is astounding. And for a nation that prides itself on supporting the underdog, Britain's loyalties are in the wrong place. Israel is the true underdog. It is a small nation, surrounded on all sides by various groups and governments that want to eradicate it from existence.
convictions than those behind CIF watch who decline to identify themselves claiming possible intimidation. They, or the organisations whose views they represent, should have the guts to stand up and be counted. I lost patience with the Guardian, which may or may not be 'obsessed' with Israel, years ago but at least its journalists and contributors to CIF identify themselves.
As a long-term Guardian reader (who keeps threatening to cancel his subscription, admittedly) I find some of the hysterical comments very depressing, (such as the UK becoming a Muslim enclave, or 70 % of English boycotting Israeli products - what planet are you living on?)reflecting existing biases and rarely demonstrating actual consideration of what the Guardian writes. That said, the drawing of attention of Lieberman's appalling talk is insufficiently balanced by reference to the more outrageous statements by Ahmenijad, Hamas and Hizbollah, who would doubtless imprison or murder a great many Guardian readers and journalists, given the chance!
Matt Seaton talks the talk but does not walk the walk. For the truth about the Guardian's obssession with Israel go to www.cifwatch.com - pity Mr Pfeffer did not speak to them as well.
Britain abolished the slave trade over 200 years ago (1807) and was one of the first countries in the world to do so. To use the slave trade to justify ignoring criticism of Israel from the british press really is beyon belief !
David is trying so hard to make a point, without merit. Jews are not the cry babies you seem to portray, perhaps you are talking about muslims.
If God did not want Israel to exist, He would not have created it. Not only that He create Israel, but he set His Chosen People there and its surrounding areas, all others are tresspassers.
Israel & all jews everywhere represent 0.2% approx of world population....so if there were 30 articles in Guardian there should have been 0.06 on anything relating to Jews.....as you said there were 3no ie 10% ....then that is 50no times over what it should be.
At the end of the day, Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Democatic values are enforced 24/7. Britain better be alert, because the way things are going on, muslims will take over the country and islam will rule it.
I do wish the British Press could get obsessed with honour killings in the Arab world. Or slavery in the Arab world and Africa. I wish university students would march through the streets holding up photos of murdered women - and little girls - who acted in a manner to 'dishonour their families'. I wish they'd get their knickers in a twist about British mullahs who want to turn Buck. House into a mosque, and kill the infidel (Yes, I'm afraid that means most of the British people.) Whilst I'm not always terribly impressed by the Israeli government's decisions, I'm also not impressed with people who ignore the Arab world's refusal to give human rights to its own people, and the lack of condemnation of Islamist extremism.
You said you went to Guardian CIF and 3 out of 30 articles were about Jews/Israel. That's 10 percent. Israel is far less than 1 percent of the world. Jews are far less than 1 percent of the world. Yet 10 percent of CIF articles today are about Israel/Jews.
Dear Mark. You say the Jewish people have nothing to fear anymore in Europe.I am afraid you hold European society to a very high standard my friend. Jews in Germany in the nineteenth century were very well intergrated in society. Stopped going to Synagogues and well, just became Germans.Didn't help they searched for birth or conversion records and you were put on the train. David Salinger Trinidad
My dear talkbackers! To understand HM's governments foreign policy, as well as the voices of the British press regarding the subject, I would like to point out the following. PM: I gather we're planning to vote against Israel in the UN tonight. Foreign Secretary: Of course. PM: Why? Foreign Secretary: They bombed the PLO. PM: But the PLO bombed Israel! Foreign Secretary: Yes but the Israelis dropped more bombs than the PLO did! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgLg9zQH3vU
After reading this Haaretz article, I went to look at the Guardian CIF, there were some 30 articles on a variety of subjects, and only 3 could be said to be about Jewish people and Israel !
There has been much said of the British attitude towards Israel over the past year or so and I have to say that they do appear to be agaist Isreal. This is, I believe, especially true of the BBC. There coverage of the Gaza War was, in my opinion, partisan and cleary very pro Palestine. I am,in case you had not realised, a British Christian and will be visitin Israel in the summer. I would like to say that not all of us think this way and have no love for our appalling goverment. So please,do not treat us all as if we are hostile towards you.
I most always disagree with Chris L. This time a valid point is made about reader/viewer choice & preference. But to compare The Jewish Chronicle, a Jewish themed- perspective media to a newspaper of general circulation is inapt. In my limited access viewings I do find UK media bias very slanted against Israel, including BBC
Very few people still read this overpriced and dishonest English newspaper.
if israel arab conflict did not involve Jews it would be of no interest to anybody. the press is obsessed with jews and what you have is an orgy mix of ignorance, bigotry, hypocrisy, cowardice, self-righteousness and deception masquerading as journalism. humans at their lowest.
here in britain, maybe three a year? i have chosen not to sign up with sky or virgin as television suppliers because of the bbc etc., and so on and so forth. this has been caused mostly, but not totally, with the disservice these british media have given. lies and bias against israel, concentration upon israel to the avoidance of other issues of more importance/significance (from serbia to the sudan, and the disenfranchised of britain itself). i am sure things have been helped by eager professionals in israel with their axes to grind and or how easy they make it for a press that could and would destroy, (anything to make it seem powerful, including provocations of talkbacks etc., obvious). the internet has provided information without borders, and i am much much better informed now, subsequent to my own private boycott.
Your words "The problem is the Occupation, as it has been since 1967" What was the excuse of attacking before 1967- "occupation"? Noone ever answers this question
For a long time I was really wandering why Guardian has so overwhelming preoccupation with all things Israel and USA. It is a very commercial paper and prints what sells. Brand Israel, Brand Jews, and Brand America that sells so they do it; Brand Britain does not sell so there is barely anything about Britain - all 61,000,000 of them. May be that's why British live is so dry and their stars make their name here, in the States, and not there - in Britain.
As far as I know, no one has proved that Israel produced the false passports. I have read that the terrorist traveled using a variety of passports. Were these too produced by Israel or were they supplied by the nations involved to aid in his travels? Was Israel the only party who sought his death? While it may be admirable to think that Israel was the only nation in the world capable of doing this, I doubt it and hope not. Blaming Israel is a good way to take other problems which may exist and place a foreign enemy in their place
Way to go vhardman!
The point is JJ that during the second intifada the guardian was trying to push the idea that Israel should not exist all, rather than that both sides should stop violence and negotiate a resolution.
You open British press and you see accusations: Jewish settlements are the main obstacle to the peace process. How about others? How about qasams, terrorist networks, Hamas statements? Are they not main obstacles to the peace process? You won't find in the British Press if they are. How about Palestinian demand for the "right of return"? Could Israel ever agree on it? So, how peace could be achieved if this demand is still on the table? This demand is the main obstacle to the peace agreement. But British Press never mentions it. Only Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. Do you know what defines anti-semitimism? It is when only Jews and nobody else found to be responsible for each problem. And that is the opinion of the British Press regarding Middle East conflict.
You said 'decent people loath racists, thieves and killers." In that case, how do you disgusting Brits validate your cheerleading the crazed, islamic fundamentalist Palestinians and their rabid obsession with trying to destroy Israel? You're just mad Israel knows how to keep them contained and prevents them from achieving their goal.
The main UK newspapers are rabidly biased against Israel, and while the actual writing isn't particularly 'anti-semitic' the frenzied responses from the readers usually are.
Good old William Wilberforce. Not only did we abolish Slavery we used the full power of the state to ensure the end of the slave trade worldwide. vHardman has a selective grasp of History,
you choose a newspaper or a television channel to suit you individual taste. For as many television programmes etc that are biased towards Israel there are others which are pro Israel. The Jewish Chronicle for instance is a newspaper which is as pro Israel as The Guardian is anti Israel. It is the sign of a vibrant democracy that all sides of the argument can be expressed without fear.
What complete rubbish. The British media, and the Guardian in particular, are utterly obsessed with Israel. They might as well change the name of Guardian to "We're Obsessed With Israel Times". My goodness, are Britons really so bored that you have nothing better to do than talk about Israel. Get a life.
It may well be the case that the op-eds in The Guardian are more critical towards Israeli policy that not. But why should there be a 'ballanced' alocation of blame/credit? The law and the honoring of agreements, after all, is mostly on the side of the Palestinian case. Further, if 'ballance' is so highly valued among Israelis (and the Haretz interviewer), then why don't we ever hear a complain about the main American media outlets, which are definately 'inbalanced' in favor of Israeli policies?
400 years ? Perhaps 100 years ? Don't forget that the embryonic USA owed its development to the slave trade and that GB was the first country to abolish slavery
Will they be printing my letter in which I pointed out that if the - as I believe - the people whose passports had been copied for the Dubia assasination were dual nationals their passports could not have been cloned at ben Gurion? Nor any were else, as a dual national they would also have Israeli passports & ID cards. For buracrucy in Israeli you use an ID card & at Ben Gurion you have by law to use your Israeli passport - the British or other national one never even comes out of your bag. I should know I am a dual national
Anyone who reads The Guardian, or watches the news presenters on the Beeb, knows the answer to this one! Yes. Yes. And most certainly, yes. MV
400 years of slave trading and this country has the temerity to be the upholder of behaviour for others !!
Sir , Your answers are stated with a delicate sense of balance , respect for your readers and a keen professional approach . With all due repect , I would call your attention to words , sentences , statements made not by readers ( who by nature are free to express themselves in any way that please them ) but by analysts , commentators , reporters .... As an example , in your answer about the use of the word nation in an editorial , you are not offering any alternative . You are actually acting like a politician who would want to give the impression of disagreeing with a statement without never actually saying so . Clever ... Reading your articles about France where I live , I notice that systematically any stament about this country's policies is always mentioned as :" the french government" , " Sarkozy's policies" ... defining very clearly the difference between ... a nation , its citizens and the political leadership . Your articles about Israel simmply never make this difference
Attacking Israel's terrible right-wing religious extremist government is not anti-Semitism. Most Israelis do it every day as do non-Israeli Jews with a moral conscience. It's puerile to go on and on that everything is anti-Semitism, despite the fact that we are taught it from birth. Fail a job interview, don't make the football team, get jailed for white collar crimes and it's always "anti-Semitism". I didn't get to play with the Rolling Stones - why blame my ineptitude on guitar- it's clearly anti-Semitism. It really is time to drop the slogan that "An attack on a bad Israeli government is an attack on all Jews. It is faeces of the male bovine and everyone knows it. The problem is the Occupation, as it has been since 1967 and the answer is simple and supported by majorities on both sides - Green Line plus and minus minor adjustments; secure elevated highway linking Gaza and the West Bank; a deal on refugees; shared Jerusalem. Stop blaming others and get on with it.
70% of people when asked to boycott Israel respond : "I already do". The rest are mostly right wing fat cat Jews and the Christian Zionist groupies
If you take time to read the comments, they are rarely anti-Semitic (I know know what 'anti-Semitic overtones' are). 99% of those advocating Palestinian statehood are perfectly happy to accept Israel's security and existence as a multi ethnic state and Jewish homeland within the Green Line. This, after all, is the stated position of the US, EU and most of the world. Most of the hostility comes from those that would claim to be Israel's supporters. Happily, Jewish people no longer need to flee persecution in Europe as the educated populations eschew organised religion. Israel's insistence on continuing the illegal colonisation is rightly frowned upon in Europe and increasingly in the US. Time to grow up. Accept the border of peace: The Green Line.
Matt Seatton is being completely disngenuous here. I live in Britain, and often read the Guardian, and can absolutely say that there is no "preoccupation" with Israel there - there is obsession. The Guardian coverage is biased, one sided, and tendentious. There is ridiculous coverage of Israel...it stinks. To be fair this is probably symptomatic of the mindset of the smug, self-satisfied, middle class champagne socialists that make up the Guardian's staff and regular readership.
I used to read the Guardian but stopped. At the height of the second intifada I returned to the UK from living in Spain. One of the first articles I saw when I returned was a full page comment witht title "Israel simply has no right to exist". This article was followed by a slew of other articles nearly all partisan agaisnt Israel and always devisive with few trying to push postive themes. It appeared to me as though there was a clear agenda and this is to someone who is has fairly moderate views about the situation. The paper has toned down its rhetoric in recent times and is relatively more balanced. However I rarely read the Guardian anymore due to its earlier approach. Regarding the passport Israel screwed up there is a lot of anger in government here. I read a quote the other day that Israel doesn't have foriegn policy only a domestic one.